Journalism's Status -
Journalism's Status In Academia:
A Candidate For Elimination?
By Fred Fedler, Arlen Carey, and Tim Counts
In 1983, Dennis warned that journalism education "appears to be on the ragged
edge of
being so hopelessly outdated that its usefulness may soon be severely
questioned."[1]
Since then, other authors have asked whether journalism education is becoming
"an
endangered species."[2]
The question arises because journalism and mass communication (JMC) programs
are
experiencing a multitude of problems. At the same time, severe financial
pressures are
forcing colleges and universities to cut back, even to eliminate some programs
and fac
ulty members.[3]
To learn more about JMC's ability to survive in this era of retrenchment, the
authors
surveyed more than 600 academicians from all disciplines and all types of
colleges and
universities. The authors asked the respondents about cutbacks at their
institutions,
about problems that might justify a program's elimination, and about which
programs
they would eliminate. The results reveal more about JMC's status, the reasons
for some
of JMC's problems, and the support that JMC can expect from colleagues in other
fields.
AN ERA OF RETRENCHMENT. Beginning in about 1990, huge deficits and a myriad
of new
demands forced legislatures to re-examine their priorities and to insist that
every
state agency, including colleges and universities, increase their productivity.
Private institutions, too, have experienced cutbacks. By 1996, Newsweek
estimated that
only 20% of the nation's colleges and universities were healthy financially,
and that
60% were struggling to adjust.[4]
Colleges have increased their productivity by increasing teaching loads and
class
sizes, freezing or eliminating some positions, and -- in extreme cases --
eliminating
entire departments. Examples include:
*The University of Virginia's 15-campus system eliminated 49 degree
programs and hundreds of faculty members.
*The president of Northwestern eliminated programs in geography, nursing,
and evolutionary biology "after deciding they could never be
first-rate."[5]
*The University of Rochester announced plans to reduce its student body by
20% and faculty by 10%. Four graduate programs were threatened with
elimination.[6]
*The University of Pennsylvania eliminated the departments of American
civilization and regional science. A third department, religious studies,
was
also threatened.[7]
The most pessimistic observers expect entire institutions to close, as many as
1,000
of the 3,600 in the United States.[8]
JMC'S PROBLEMS AND STATUS. JMC programs face serious internal problems,
including
low budgets; large enrollments; a scarcity of jobs for their graduates;
technological
changes that require new and expensive equipment; and professionals who, at
times, seem
impossible to satisfy.[9] Some critics also dislike JMC's structure.
Traditionally, JMC
programs have offered sequences in reporting, broadcasting, advertising, public
relations, photojournalism, magazines, etc.
Blanchard and Christ warn that universities with limited resources will no
longer
tolerate duplicating specializations with separate courses such as writing for
television, writing for newspapers, writing for public relations, and writing
for
advertising. Blanchard and Christ add that the communications revolution (the
media's
convergence and related trends) is making JMC's traditional sequences obsolete.
They
continue:
...there are often competing, sometimes warring, departments, schools, or
divisions of speech, journalism, broadcasting, telecommunications, mass
communications, communication arts, communication and theater, and film
and other
industrial or technological rather than intellectual, designations. Even
when
not overtly competing for resources and intellectual turf, separate
programs
related to the mass communication field by their very division tend to
inhibit
the development of its potential.[10]
Other critics, especially professionals, dislike JMC's emphasis on Ph.D.'s and
research. Many want schools to hire only experienced practitioners, and to
place more
emphasis on skills courses.[11] Medsger, for example, complains that 17% of
the field's
educators have never worked full-time as journalists and that 47% have fewer
than 10
years of journalism experience. "It's a dangerous trend," Medsger says. "It
means
we're taking the expertise out of the classroom."[12]
Reese Cleghorn calls Medsger's findings shocking. "Work in the field,"
Cleghorn
states, "...is being demeaned. Academic departments (and their universities)
are
engaged in a foolish effort to gain or hold respectability with even the most
ordinary
kind of paper credentialing, often at the expense of quality and intellectual
substance."[13]
Other faculty members warn that JMC's status in academia is dangerously low,
and some
suggest that efforts to implement the professionals' demands may aggravate the
problem.
Dennis declares that: "On campus, by any economic measure, journalism schools
are
second- or third-class citizens. They have massive enrollments and tiny
faculties...."[14]
Blanchard and Christ agree that JMC has a second-rate status "even among the
other
professional programs on campus."[15]
To survive and prosper, McCall believes, JMC must become "a more active
partner, even
an intellectual leader in the university." McCall explains that universities
expect
every field to contribute to the academic environment of the entire campus, and
that,
"Typical J-school skills courses directed at vocational preparation can hardly
meet
this challenge."[16]
To make JMC programs more central to their institution's mission, reformers
want
them to become more involved with other fields and to offer more courses for
non-majors.[17]
To achieve parity with other programs, JMC programs may also have to
"satisfy
faculty qualifications of the entire university community."
Still other observers suggest that JMC is not well-accepted in academia
because the
discipline: (1) is new, (2) has failed to develop a unique theoretical base,
and (3)
has never served a true profession.[18]
ELIMINATING JMC. Several JMC programs have already been eliminated, or
threatened
with elimination. A partial list includes:
*The Department of Communication at the University of Michigan.
*The Department of Journalism at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
*The Department of Journalism at Oregon State University.
*The School of Journalism at Ohio State.
*The Graduate School of Journalism at the University of Western
Ontario.[19]
Units at other institutions have been merged or reorganized: at Penn State,
San
Diego State, Southern Illinois University, the University of Miami, and the
University
of Southern California, for example. Furthermore, two states -- Louisiana and
Tennesse
e -- have threatened to eliminate every program unable to obtain
accreditation.[20]
Dennis cites four reasons for the closures, consolidations, and other threats:
(1)
university downsizing and budget-cutting; (2) duplication, especially between
journalism and communication; (3) the issue of centrality to a university's
mission;
and (4) a leadership vacuum. "The field," Dennis believes, "has relatively few
leaders
who are highly visible and notably effective on their campuses. In instance
after
instance, people in our field have been naive and ineffectual in the
competitive campus
scene."[21]
Despite the topic's importance, there has been little systematic study of
JMC's
problems and status. Rather, the debate has been based largely upon opinions,
warnings, demands, and counter-demands. To obtain more factual information
about JMC's
status and ability to survive in this era of retrenchment, the authors surveyed
faculty
members in other disciplines. The authors wanted to determine other faculty
members'
attitudes toward JMC and their support (or lack thereof) for its continued role
in
academia.
Methodology
The 26th edition of the National Directory of Faculty Members was published in
1996
and, in three volumes, lists more than 650,000 names and addresses. The
entries are
arranged alphabetically, by last name, and represent every discipline and every
type of
college and university: a total of 3,600 institutions in the United States and
240 in
Canada.
To draw a sample of more than 600, the authors selected Page 5, then counted
down to
the 15th name in the first column. They repeated the selection process on
every sixth
page, but excluded faculty members who teach (1) at community colleges or (2)
outside
the United States. If the 15th entry on a page did not teach at a four-year
institution in the United States, the authors proceeded to the next entry that
satisfied their criteria. Both the initial page number and the row were
selected at
random.
In the spring of 1996, the authors mailed questionnaires to a total of 647
respondents. A cover letter explained that the authors wanted to learn more
about
academia's problems and about faculty members' priorities in this age of
retrenchment.
One week later, the authors mailed all 647 respondents postcards, asking them
to
respond if they had not already done so (and thanking them if they had).
The questionnaire was limited to 12 items that filled both sides of a single
sheet of
paper (See Appendix A, which follows the four tables). The first questions
asked for
information about the respondents and their schools: the respondents' gender,
rank,
and field; whether they taught at a public or private institution; the highest
degree
offered by their department; and the total number of students enrolled in their
institution.
Question 8 asked whether the respondents' institution had experienced any
cutbacks
during the past three years. Question 9 asked for the respondents' priorities.
If
their institution was forced to reduce its payroll, would they want it to: (A)
cut ever
yone's salary, (B) eliminate new faculty, (C) eliminate incompetent and
unproductive
faculty, (D) encourage older faculty to retire, or (E) cut only the salaries of
highly-paid faculty?
Question 10 asked about cutting programs. If need be, would the respondents
want
their institution to: (A) cut every program equally, (B) eliminate only
graduate
programs, (C) eliminate expensive programs, (D) eliminate small and
unproductive
programs, or (E) eliminate programs not central to the mission of their
institution.
Question 11 asked respondents which problems they considered most serious:
"possible
reasons for eliminating a program." The problems included: (A) few students,
(B) weak
students, (C) high expenses, (D) a failure to seek accreditation, (E) a failure
to
obtain outside funding, (F) an emphasis on vocational training, (G) a weak
record of
scholarly activity, (H) a failure to employ many Ph.D.'s, (I) a duplication
with
programs elsewhere in the state, and (J) a weak demand for its graduates.
The respondents were then given an alphabetical list of 37 departments or
programs
common at many universities and asked, "If you were an administrator and had to
eliminate several departments, which five would you be the most likely to
eliminate."
The list included, as separate entries: (1) advertising/public relations, (2)
broadcasting, and (3) journalism. The list also included several other fields
that
prepare students for a particular type of work: agriculture, architecture,
criminal
justice, education, hospitality management, nursing, and social work.
Finally, an open-ended question asked respondents to explain their choice of
the five
departments to be eliminated.
Findings
DEMOGRAPHICS. Twenty-six questionnaires (4.0%) were returned as
undeliverable. The
authors received 225 replies from the 621 questionnaires that were delivered,
for a
response rate of 36.2%.
An analysis of the completed questionnaires revealed that 154 (68.4%) of the
respondents were men and 69 (30.7%) women.*[22] The respondents were also
divided by
rank: 5.8% were instructors, 18.2% assistant professors, 29.3% associate
professors,
and 41.8% professors.
English departments, with 8.4% of the respondents, were most heavily
represented.
Departments with the next largest representations included business and
education,
6.7% each; biology, 6.2%; math, 5.8%; chemistry, 5.3%; psychology, 4.4%; and
political s
cience, 4.0%. Only 5 responses (2.2%) came from faculty members in the fields
of
journalism and/or mass communication. Four of the respondents listed their
field as
journalism, 1 as broadcasting, and none as advertising/public relations.
Sixty-six (29.3%) of the respondents taught at private institutions and 156
(69.3%)
at public institutions. Seventeen percent said the highest degree offered by
their
department was a bachelor's degree, 33.8% a master's degree, and 44.4% a
doctorate. A
mean of 14,165 students enrolled in their institutions.
The average faculty member reported devoting a majority of his or her time
(52.6%) to
teaching. By comparison, the respondents devoted 20.9% of their time to
research,
14.2% to administration, 10.3% to service, and 1.5% to other activities. The
emphasis
on research varied significantly from department to department. Nearly a
quarter
(24.6%) of the respondents in the hard sciences said they devoted a majority of
their
time to research, compared to 6.3% or fewer of the faculty members in other
fields. (X
2 = 63.5, p .001)
Within the past three years, large numbers of the respondents had witnessed
cutbacks
at their institution. Eighty percent said their institution had delayed
filling
faculty lines, and 72.4% said their institution had cut department budgets.
Only 35.6%
of their institutions had increased faculty teaching loads, the least popular
of the
listed options. An analysis of all the answers to Question 8 revealed that:
--80.4% of the respondents' institutions had delayed filling faculty
lines during the past three years
--72.4% had cut department budgets
--64.0% had increased class sizes
--62.7% had encouraged early retirements
--61.8% had eliminated faculty positions
--43.6% had eliminated some departments
--41.8% had imposed a salary freeze
--35.6% had increased teaching loads
FACULTY PRIORITIES. The respondents were also asked about their priorities:
the
types of cutbacks they would favor if given the responsibility of deciding how
their
institution should reduce its faculty payroll. The most popular idea was the
encouragement of early retirements. The next most popular idea was the
elimination of
deadwood, regardless of tenure. The least popular idea was the elimination of
new
(untenured) faculty:
--58.2% of the respondents favored offering inducements to
encourage older faculty members to retire early
--31.6% favored eliminating their institution's least competent and
productive faculty, regardless of tenure
--20.9% favored cutting everyone's salary
--12.9% favored cutting the salaries of only their institution's
highest-paid faculty members
--4.0% favored eliminating the newest (untenured) faculty members
at their institution
Senior faculty members -- the ones most likely to be affected by the proposal
-- were
significantly more likely to favor the idea of offering inducements for early
retirements, suggesting that many would welcome the idea. Thirty-one percent
of the
instructors, 46.3% of the assistant professors, 65.2% of the associate
professors, and
63.9% of the professors supported the idea. (X2 = 11.2, p .05)
The respondents' answers to another question were not encouraging for any
program
that fails to clearly help an institution achieve its central mission. If
their
institution was forced to cut some programs next year, more than half the
respondents
would eliminate programs not central to their institution's mission. More
specifically:
--57.8% of the respondents would eliminate programs not central to the
mission of their institution
--38.7% would eliminate their institution's smallest and least
productive programs
--12.4% would cut every program equally
--3.1% would eliminate their institution's most expensive
programs
--1.8% would eliminate only graduate programs
The respondents were also asked which three problems they considered most
serious:
possible reasons for eliminating a program. The respondents did not seem to
care
whether a program received outside funding or employed few Ph.D.s. The
respondents
were, however, concerned about (and more likely to eliminate) programs with few
or weak
students, and programs whose students were unable to find jobs in their field:
--53.8% of the respondents would eliminate programs that attract few
students
--44.4% would eliminate programs that attract weak students
--42.7% would eliminate programs unable to place their graduates in
jobs
--36.9% would eliminate programs with a weak record of scholarly
activity
--29.8% would eliminate programs duplicated elsewhere in their state
--24.9% would eliminate programs that emphasize trade or
vocational training
--22.2% would eliminate programs that never seek accreditation
--22.2% would eliminate programs that are unusually expensive
--7.1% would eliminate programs that have more M.A.'s than Ph.D.'s
on their staffs
--4.4% would eliminate programs that receive little outside funding
Finally, the respondents were given the list of 37 common programs and asked
which
five they would be most likely to eliminate. Thirty-seven respondents (16.4%)
did not
answer the question and explained that the choices were not applicable to their
insti
tution or that they were not familiar with the issues. Others said their
choices would
depend upon student needs and upon an individual program's strengths and
weaknesses.
Several of the respondents explained that they would eliminate any weak
program, r
egardless of its field. They would look at a program's history, productivity,
possible
combination with other departments, and a host of other educational and
political
issues.
Still, 188 of the respondents (83.6%) did list the programs they would
eliminate (See
Table I). The results were encouraging for journalism, but not for
advertising/public
relations or broadcasting. Programs that 10% or more of the respondents said
they
would eliminate, and the specific number and percentage that would eliminate
each
program, included:
--Hospitality management, 132 (58.7%)
--Home economics, 96 (42.7%)
--Judaic studies, 88 (39.1%)
--Women's studies, 84 (37.3%)
--African-American studies, 76 (33.8%)
--Advertising/public relations, 71 (31.6%)
--Broadcasting, 59 (26.2%)
--Physical education, 32 (14.2%)
--Criminal justice, 26 (11.6%)
Not a single respondent proposed eliminating chemistry or mathematics. Only
three
(or fewer) proposed eliminating art, biology, computer science, economics,
English,
foreign languages, history, political science, and psychology.
Generally, the respondents explained that their two top choices for
elimination --
hospitality management and home economics -- were irrelevant to their
institution's
mission or to the core of a liberal arts education. Respondents also said that
those fi
elds are too vocational and could taught at a community college.
Respondents who favored eliminating African-American, Judaic, and women's
studies
again explained that the programs were not essential to their institution's
mission.
Many added that African-American, Judaic, and women's studies were "fringe"
programs i
nstituted for political rather than academic reasons. "They resulted," said
one
respondent, "from the political correctness movement."
The final, open-ended question asked respondents to explain their choice of
the five
programs to be eliminated. The authors categorized the respondents' answers
and found
that some repeated issues listed in Question 11. Others, however, did not, and
the
authors developed a total of 25 categories (See Table II). The respondents'
No. 1
reason for eliminating a program was that it could be combined with others.
The
respondents also said that some programs were too vocational (Reason No. 2),
were not
essential to their institution's mission (Reason No. 3), and were too narrow or
specialized (Reason No. 4).
JOURNALISM'S STATUS IN ACADEMIA. Only 6 of the 225 respondents (2.7%) said
they
would eliminate journalism. Thus, journalism did better than major fields
such as
business, education, sociology, speech, statistics, and theater.
However, 71 of the respondents (31.6%) said they would eliminate
advertising/public
relations, and 59 (26.2%) said they would eliminate broadcasting. Those
results are
difficult to interpret (and may be much better -- or worse -- than indicated by
the st
atistics alone).
Many four-year institutions do not offer and, therefore, cannot eliminate
hospitality
management or home economics. Furthermore, some administrators may be
reluctant to
eliminate the newer and politically sensitive areas of African-American,
Judaic, and
women's studies. If an institution cannot eliminate any of those five
programs,
advertising/public relations and broadcasting may become its No. 1 and No. 2
candidates
for elimination.
Why? Six reasons predominate (See Table III). Respondents who said they
would
eliminate advertising/public relations and broadcasting (and also journalism)
said the
fields:
1. Involve trade or vocational rather than intellectual training
2. Should be taught at community colleges, trade schools, or private
business schools, not universities
3. Can be taught on-the-job
4. Are peripheral to central mission of their institution
5. Contribute little to a liberal arts education
6. Are among universities' "least scholarly pursuits"
Not a single critic mentioned the fact that JMC programs are new, or
complained that
JMC education has failed to develop a unique theoretical base.
There were inconsistencies, however. Some respondents complained that fields
such as
home economics, hospitality management, broadcasting, and advertising/public
relations
were too vocational. Others, however, said they would eliminate programs that
did not
help students obtain jobs. That was a criticism of African-American, Judaic,
and
women's studies. One respondent complained that a degree in ethnic studies
"has no
future for jobs in the work world." A second respondent agreed that, "These
are depa
rtments which cannot provide clearly defined careers for their students...."
The results for advertising/public relations and broadcasting may not,
however, be as
dismal as the numbers suggest. Many of the respondents who listed programs
they would
eliminate explained in answer to another question that they would retain the
programs'
content, moving it to other departments. More than a dozen respondents
suggested
moving broadcasting to journalism. Others suggested moving advertising/public
relations to journalism. By a margin of almost 3-1, however, the respondents
favored
moving advertising/public relations to business.
That was part of a broader trend. To save jobs and money, the respondents
proposed
more than a dozen mergers. Many suggested merging African-American, Judaic,
and/or
women's studies with history, literature, philosophy, or sociology. Even some
of the p
rograms' proponents proposed merging them with other departments. They
explained that
mergers would expose more students to the programs' content. "While
important," one
respondent explained, "topics taught in specialized disciplines emphasizing
cultural
diversity could be incorporated in core or basic education requirements, thus
broadening their ideas to a larger group of students."
Other respondents suggested merging hospitality management with business;
music with
art; speech with communication (or English or theater); and theater into a
school of
performing arts.
There were also proposals for three mega mergers: (1) both computer science
and
statistics with math; (2) anthropology, criminal justice, and social work with
sociology; and (3) all of the communication fields into a single school that
would
include advertising/public relations, broadcasting, communication, journalism,
speech,
and theater.
Support for the elimination or merger of advertising/public relations,
broadcasting,
and journalism did not vary significantly by any of six other variables: the
respondents' (1) gender; (2) rank; (3) field; (4) whether the respondents'
department
offered a bachelor's degree, master's degree, or doctorate; (5) whether the
respondents' institution was public or private; or (6) the way in which
respondents
divided their time between teaching, research, and service.
There were significant differences for other fields. Associate and full
professors
were more likely than assistant professors to favor eliminating education (X2 =
9.6,
p .05). Faculty members in the liberal arts were more likely to favor
eliminating e
ngineering (X2 = 9.9, p .05). Faculty members in the liberal arts were also
more
likely to favor eliminating hospitality management (X2 = 12.9, p .05)
DIFFERENCES BY GENDER AND RANK. Men and women differed significantly in the
allocation of their time. Men were almost nine times more likely to report
devoting a
majority of their time to research (X2 = 16.2, p .05). Men were also more
likely to
have attained a higher rank. Fifty percent of the men were full professors,
compared
to 23.5% of the women. Conversely, 13.0% of the men were assistant professors,
compared to 30.9% of the women. Twenty-seven percent of the men and 35% of the
women
were associate professors (X2= 17.1, p .01). The percentages of the male and
female
respondents employed as instructors were almost identical: 5.8% vs. 5.9%.
There were also two other significant differences by gender. First, men were
almost
twice as likely to favor eliminating women's studies: 42.2% vs. 24.6% (X2 =
6.3, p
.05). Second, compared to women, men were four times more likely to say that
they w
ould eliminate programs not central to the mission of their institution.
Other responses varied by rank. When asked to explain why they favored the
elimination of some programs, both senior faculty members and the faculty
members in
departments that offered doctorates were more likely to explain that a program
was
vocational or should be offered in a professional or trade school.
Senior faculty members were also more likely to explain that the programs they
wanted
to eliminate were not essential to the mission of their institution.
DIFFERENCES BY ACTIVITY AND FIELD. There were major differences by activity
and
field. Many of those differences seemed to reflect the respondents'
specialized
interests. For example: 76.2% of the faculty members who devoted most of
their time
to research said they would eliminate programs that produce little scholarly
research,
compared to only 29.0% of the faculty members who devoted most of their time to
teaching (X2 = 23.5, p .01).
Similarly, issues considered a problem by the faculty members in some of
academia's
fields did not concern the faculty members in other fields. The differences
were most
apparent when faculty members were grouped by college (See Table IV).
DIFFERENCES BY INSTITUTION. Some differences by institution may be of
particular
interest to faculty members in journalism. The differences may also interest
new
faculty members, especially those deciding where to spend their careers.
Faculty members in departments that offer a doctorate were more likely than
average
to favor eliminating programs that employ few Ph.D.'s. Curiously, however,
they were
less likely to favor eliminating programs that attract weak students.
Thirteen percent of the faculty members in departments that offer a doctorate,
but
only 2.6% of the faculty members at other institutions, would eliminate
programs with a
preponderance of M.A.'s (X2 = 8.9, p .05). Yet only 38% of the faculty
members in
departments that offer a doctorate would eliminate programs that attract weak
students,
compared to 50.0% of the faculty members at schools that offer a B.A. and 52.6%
of the
faculty members at schools that offer an M.A. (X2 = 8.2, p .05).
Other differences by institution included:
*Respondents at public institutions were more likely to say their
departments offer advanced degrees. Thirteen percent of the respondents
at
public institutions said their department's highest degree was a
bachelor's
degree, 35.8% a master's degree, and 47.7% a doctorate. The percentages
at
private institutions were 27.7%, 32.3%, and 40.0%, respectively (X2 = 8.3,
p
.05).
*Respondents at public institutions were more likely to value
accreditation. Twenty-six percent of the respondents at public
institutions,
compared to 13.6% of those at private institutions, would eliminate
programs that
fail to seek accreditation (X2 = 4.3, p .05).
*Almost 8% of the respondents at public institutions, but none at
private institutions, would eliminate speech (X2 = 5.4, p .05).
*Perhaps because they offer fewer graduate programs, respondents at
private
institutions were more likely to favor eliminating graduate programs in
times of
economic hardship. Still, it was not a popular option at any institution.
Only
4.5% of the faculty members at private institutions favored eliminating
graduate
programs, compared to 0.6% of those at public institutions (X2 = 4.0, p
.05).
*Respondents at private institutions were more likely to favor eliminating
expensive programs: 34.8% vs. 17.3% (X2 = 8.2, p .01).
*Respondents at private institutions were also more likely to favor
eliminating physical education: 21.2% vs. 10.9% (X2 = 4.1, p .05).
CENTRALITY AND VOCATIONALISM. Centrality was a major issue -- and not just
for
journalism. The respondents repeatedly stated that they would eliminate any
program
not central to the mission of their institution. Many explained that those
programs
contribute little to a liberal arts education. The respondents' wording
differed, but
their statements delivered a consistent message, complaining that such programs
were:
*"...the farthest from our core intellectual academic mission."
*"...not important components of a liberal education."
*"...peripheral to the primary liberal arts goal of education."
*"...extremely narrowly focused or specialized and do not contribute
substantially to a liberal arts education."
Finally, the questionnaire also listed seven other fields that seem to train
students
for a particular type of work: agriculture, architecture, criminal justice,
education,
hospitality management, nursing, and social work. On average, each of those
fields
received 32.3 votes for elimination, (a figure inflated by the 132 votes to
eliminate
hospitality management). Without hospitality management, the remaining fields
received
an average of 15.7 votes for elimination, still more than average.
Discussion And Conclusions
JMC educators worry about their field's problems and, especially, about recent
cutbacks and the elimination of some programs. The authors of this article
surveyed
faculty members from every discipline and from every type of college and
university --
and found that JMC's problems are not unusual. Rather, their problems reflect
widespread changes within academia: changes that affect most departments.
Forty-four percent of the respondents reported that their institution had
eliminated
some departments, obviously not all JMC departments. At least five other
departments
seem to be more vulnerable to elimination than any in JMC: hospitality
management;
home economics; and Judaic, women's, and African-American studies.
The respondents' comments also suggest that other generalizations are
mistaken.
Critics may exaggerate the amount of time that faculty members devote to
research,
especially faculty members in the liberal arts. JMC educators, on the other
hand, may
exaggerate the importance of Ph.D.'s for acceptance in academia. Also, JMC
programs
seem more likely to be merged than eliminated. Independent departments of
broadcasting
and advertising/ public relations are especially vulnerable.
Few respondents -- only 2.7% -- would eliminate their institution's journalism
program. Seeing a commonality not evident to everyone in the field, many would
actually strengthen their institution's journalism program by creating a single
school
that would also include advertising/public relations, broadcasting, film,
theater,
speech, and communication.
Other responses suggest that JMC's problems may be aggravated by the demands
of some
faculty members and professionals. Their demands conflict with the
expectations of
colleagues in academia's other fields. Some educators and professionals want
JMC prog
rams to emphasize skills courses and to emphasize teaching rather than
research. Yet
faculty members in other fields often consider those reasons for eliminating a
program.
Many of the respondents who said they would eliminate advertising/ public
relations
and broadcasting, for example, explained that the two fields involve trade or
vocational training and are among universities' "least scholarly pursuits."
Thirty-seven percent of the respondents favored eliminating programs with a
weak record
of scholarly activity.
Overall, faculty members in other fields do not seem to hold journalism and
its
related fields in high regard. They complain that JMC programs are more
vocational
than intellectual or scholarly. They are skeptical of programs not obviously
central
to the mission of their institution: that seem too specialized, and that do
not
contribute to a liberal arts education. Moreover, they group JMC education
with other
programs of dubious status: with hospitality management; home economics; and
African-American, Judaic, and women's studies.
JMC faculty members and administrators may dispute those criticisms, but
arguments
alone seem unlikely to change the perceptions of colleagues in other fields.
And, at
some point, those colleagues may influence JMC's role in academia.
Finally, this study suggests eight strategies that JMC programs can adopt to
improve
their status in academia. Listed in their approximate order of importance, the
strategies include: (1) making themselves more central to the mission of their
institution; (2) serving even larger numbers of students; (3) recruiting more
talented
students; (4) doing more to help their students find jobs; (5) improving their
record
of scholarly activity; (6) developing unique programs, ones not duplicated
elsewhere in
their state; (7) emphasizing intellectual rather than vocational training; and
(8)
seeking accreditation.
Table I
Faculty Priorities: The Programs
Respondents Would Eliminate
This study's respondents were given a list of 37 programs and asked to mark
the five
they would be most likely to eliminate. This table lists all 37 programs,
beginning
with those that the largest number of respondents would eliminate. This table
also l
ists the number and percentage of respondents that would eliminate each
program.
132 (58.7%) Hospitality management
96 (42.7%) Home economics
88 (39.1%) Judaic studies
84 (37.3%) Women's studies
76 (33.8%) African-American studies
71 (31.6%) Advertising/public relations
59 (26.2%) Broadcasting
32 (14.2%) Physical education
26 (11.6%) Criminal justice
21 (9.3%) Agriculture
19 (8.4%) Pharmacy
18 (8.0%) Social work
15 (6.7%) Geography
14 (6.2%) Anthropology, statistics, and theater
13 (5.8%) Business, education, and "other"
12 (5.3%) Speech
10 (4.4%) Sociology
9 (4.0%) Architecture
8 (3.6%) Engineering
7 (3.1%) Nursing
6 (2.7%) Journalism
5 (2.2%) Philosophy
4 (1.8%) Music
3 (1.3%) Art, foreign languages, and political science
2 (0.9%) Biology, computer science, history, and psychology
1 (0.4%) Economics and English
0 (0.0%) Chemistry and mathematics
Table II
Reasons For Eliminating Programs
An open-ended question asked respondents to explain their reasons for
eliminating
programs. The authors categorized the respondents' answers, and this table
presents
all 25 categories in the order of their importance. The table also lists the
total numb
er and percentage of respondents that mentioned each reason.
54 (24.0%) No need for a unique program; can be combined with another.
36 (16.0%) Program is vocational in nature or should be offered in a
professional or trade school, not a university.
31 (13.8%) Not essential to the university mission.
19 (8.4%) Program is too narrow or specialized.
17 (7.6%) Can't answer. Depends upon the situation.
11 (4.9%) Program attracts few students.
9 (4.0%) Program exists because of political correctness.
8 (3.6%) Community college-level program.
8 (3.6%) Program does not prepare graduates for careers.
8 (3.6%) Knowledge can be obtained without university or other formal
training.
8 (3.6%) Weak research program or program is intellectually deficient.
8 (3.6%) Not applicable.
6 (2.7%) Respondent would not accept any program cuts.
5 (2.2%) Program turns out too many graduates for employment
opportunities. Its graduates are hard to place.
4 (1.8%) Program is useless.
4 (1.8%) Program duplicates others in the state.
4 (1.8%) Program is unnecessary.
3 (1.3%) Program is not socially relevant.
2 (0.9%) Weak academic program.
2 (0.9%) Program attracts weak students.
2 (0.9%) Program does not bring in enough outside money to sustain
itself.
1 (0.4%) Program is fraudulent.
1 (0.4%) Program's discipline is becoming obsolete.
1 (0.4%) Little demand for the program's curriculum.
1 (0.4%) Program is too costly to sustain.
Table IV
Differences By College
Other significant differences emerged when the respondents were grouped into
four
common colleges: (1) business, (2) education, (3) the liberal arts and social
sciences, and (4) the hard sciences. The differences between faculty members
in those
colleges include:
*The percentage of women in academia's different fields ranged from a high
of 50% in education to a low of 15.0% in business. Thirty-one percent of
the
respondents in the liberal arts and social sciences and 29.5% in the hard
sciences were women.
*85.7% of the respondents in business would eliminate programs that
attract
few students, compared to 77.8% of those in education, 48.1% of those in
the
liberal arts and social sciences, and 41.0% of those in the hard sciences
(X2 =
17.9, p .01).
*29.1% of the respondents in the liberal arts and social sciences would
eliminate programs that never seek accreditation, compared to 19.7% of
those in
the hard sciences, 16.7% of those in education, and 0.0% of those in
business (X2
= 9.8, p .05).
*44.3% of the respondents in the hard sciences would eliminate programs
with a weak record of scholarly research, compared to 41.8% of those in
the
liberal arts and social sciences, 19.0% of those in business and 5.6% of
those in
education (X2 = 13.4, p .01)
*61.1% of the respondents in education would eliminate programs unable to
place many of their graduates in jobs, compared to 57.4% of those in the
hard
sciences, 47.6% of those in business, and 27.8% of those in the liberal
arts and
social sciences (X2 = 16.2, p .01).
Table III
Comments Explaining Why Respondents Would
Eliminate Journalism, Ad/Pr, & Broadcasting
In response to an open-ended question, many of the faculty members who said
they
would eliminate advertising/public relations, broadcasting, and/or journalism
explained
their decisions. This table quotes every respondent who favored eliminating
one or mo
re of those programs. The table is limited, however, to quoting only the
respondents'
reasons for eliminating a JMC program (except in cases where a single comment
explains
why a respondent would eliminate every program he or she listed).
For comparative purposes, this table lists all the programs that each
respondent
would eliminate. The lists show that journalism is rarely linked with
academia's
mainstream fields, such as economics, English, history, mathematics, and
psychology.
Abbreviations include: "A-A studies" for African American studies, "hosp.
man." for
hospitality management, "physical ed." for physical education, and "w.s." for
women's
studies.
1. We do not have the departments listed above. They seem less essential to
what I
believe to be the mission of a university. (Ad/pr, A-A studies,
broadcasting, hosp.
man., w.s.)
2. These specialties could easily be folded into existing, larger departments.
(A-A
studies, criminal justice, home ec., journalism, Judaic studies, w.s.)
3. Combine journalism and broadcasting. (A-A studies, broadcasting, hosp.
man.,
Judaic studies, statistics)
4. While these programs are potentially valuable I don't see them as necessary
for the
progress/functioning of society and see duplication in some areas -- for
example --
broadcasting & journalism. (A-A studies, broadcasting, hosp. man., Judaic
studies, w
.s.)
5. I consider them less necessary than the remainder on the list. (Ad/pr,
agriculture, geography, home ec., hosp. man., w.s.)
6. They are fraudulent. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, education, hosp. man., sociology,
w.s.)
7. First, all five are structured and taught more on the order of professional
schools
than on the order of mainstream arts and science programs. Second ...
these five tend
to be mediocre in mainstream arts and sciences-oriented universities
because they
attract less ambitious and less well-prepared students.... (Ad/pr,
agriculture,
architecture, criminal justice, hosp. man.)
8. Not relevant to my college, department, or field. (Ad/pr, agriculture, home
ec.,
hosp. man., physical ed.)
9. Peripheral to critical mission in this state university. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting,
pharmacy)
10. Not conducive to higher education or too narrowly targeted. (A-A studies,
broadcasting, home ec., hosp. man., Judaic studies)
11. Low need, can be combined with other departments very easily.
(Broadcasting, home
ec., Judaic studies, statistics)
12. Only architecture is an appropriate university subject. The other four are
more
professional or vocational. (Ad/pr, architecture, home ec., hosp. man.,
physical ed.)
13. I view broadcasting as a vocational skill. (Broadcasting, physical ed.,
theater)
14. Broadcasting can be combined in a communications area. (Anthropology,
broadcasting, home ec., Judaic studies, philosophy)
15. Relevance to university mission in this state. (A-A studies, broadcasting,
Judaic
studies, speech, w.s.)
16. May be covered in on-the-job training. (Ad/pr, home ec., hosp. man., w.s.)
17. Can be part of other departments. (A-A studies, broadcasting, home ec.,
Judaic
studies, w.s.)
18. Are available in private business schools. (Ad/pr, broadcasting, hosp.
man.,
pharmacy)
19. These departments can be left to the home, culture, or church for
education. (A-A
studies, broadcasting, home ec., Judaic studies, social work, w.s.)
20. No rationale for expertise. (Ad/pr, education, home ec., Judaic studies,
w.s.)
21. A trade school type of course of study. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, hosp. man.,
Judaic
studies, w.s.
22. Ad/pr and hospitality management are subsets of business. Further
redundancies
appear in broadcasting, theater, and journalism. A Department of
Communications could
combine speech with the other three. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, hosp. man.,
Judaic studies,
w.s.)
23. Not central to liberal education. (A-A studies, broadcasting, criminal
justice,
journalism, w.s.)
24. Not central to academic mission. (Ad/pr, hosp. man., Judaic studies,
theater,
w.s.)
25. Not important components of a liberal education. (Ad/pr, home economics,
pharmacy, social work, theater)
26. They are all handled well in community colleges -- or could be. (Ad/pr,
criminal
justice, home ec., hosp. man., speech)
27. Not central to academic mission. Can handle under journalism. (Ad/pr,
home ec.,
hosp. man., physical ed., social work)
28. These topics are better handled at a trade school. (Ad/pr, broadcasting,
criminal
justice, hosp. man., social work)
29. Are vocations well staffed by liberal arts graduates. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting,
geography, hosp. man., physical ed.)
30. I don't see these as vital to the major role of most universities. (A-A
studies,
broadcasting, hosp. man., Judaic studies, w.s.)
31. Not essential to the core learning experience. All could be integrated
into other
programs. (Broadcasting, home ec., hosp. man., physical ed., w.s.)
32. Not centrally intellectual enterprises. (Ad/pr, agriculture, home ec.,
hosp.
man., physical ed.)
33. Could be taught in other departments, e.g., advertising in marketing ... or
eliminated altogether. (Ad/pr, home ec., hosp. man., speech, statistics)
34. As for ad/pr, all society needs is more liars. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, home
ec.,
theater, w.s.)
35. No intellectual content -- except Judaic studies, too specialized. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting, business, hosp. man., Judaic studies)
36. They are the farthest from the core intellectual academic mission. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting, hosp. man., physical ed., speech)
37. They are most nearly vocational training rather than an intellectual field.
(Ad/pr, home ec., hosp. man., nursing, social work)
38. Some emphasize segregation or isolation between groups. Others do not need
to be
in a university. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, broadcasting, home ec., w.s.)
39. Subject matter is duplicated regularly in higher educational
institutions....
(Ad/pr, A-A studies, broadcasting, Judaic studies, w.s.)
40. I've chosen only four -- those for which on-the-job training seems more
appropriate or for which another field provides adequate background.
Journalism can
train adwriters and publicists, for example. (Ad/pr, broadcasting,
business, hosp.
man.)
41. These can be better served by non-academic institutions and on-the-job
training.
(Ad/pr, business, hosp. man.)
42. They are either too narrowly defined or useless or divisive. (Ad/pr, A-A
studies,
home ec., hosp. man., w.s.)
43. These are applied fields which need sound liberal arts education rather
than
specific, capitalistic content. (Ad/pr, broadcasting, business, home ec.,
hosp. man.)
44. They are more job-training oriented than research-scholarship. Students
have
non-college alternatives for job training. For example, I would keep a
communication
department but not a broadcasting department. They are peripheral to the
primary
liberal arts goal of education. (Ad/pr, agriculture, broadcasting, hosp.
man.)
45. Ad/pr, broadcasting, journalism could be blended into one. (ALSO: A-A
studies,
agriculture, architecture, criminal justice, home ec., hospitality man.,
Judaic
studies, pharmacy)
46. Not central. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, home ec., hosp. man., w.s.)
47. I don't believe these departments are central to a university's general
mission
and could be offered by technical/vocational schools. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting, criminal
justice, home ec., hosp. man.)
48. Some contribute least to the liberal arts in general (are too specific)
while
others do not provide critical vocational skills. (Ad/pr, A-A studies,
home ec., hosp.
man., Judaic studies, w.s.)
49. Not academic disciplines. (Ad/pr, broadcasting, hosp. man., nursing,
pharmacy)
50. Advertising/public relations, African-American studies, and Judaic studies
could
be incorporated into other departments. (Ad/pr, A-A studies, home ec.,
hosp. man.,
Judaic studies)
51. Primarily emphasizes trade or vocational training. Not very academic.
(Ad/pr,
broadcasting, hosp. man., journalism, Judaic studies)
52. These departments are not central to the mission of a university.
Journalism,
advertising, and pr can be learned with on-the-job training. (Ad/pr, home
ec., hosp.
man., journalism, physical ed.)
53. These programs offer little of positive value and in some instances are
really
negative. Often their functions can be handled by other disciplines.
(Ad/pr,
education, hosp. man.)
54. Would be least critical in a well-rounded liberal arts university. These
programs
may also be available at technical or professional schools. (Ad/pr, home
ec., hosp.
man., pharmacy, physical ed.)
55. Many of these are trade oriented and have little relevance to society.
(Ad/pr,
broadcasting, education, home ec., hosp. man.)
56. These departments seem more vocational in content and aims. The least
scholarly
pursuits. (Ad/pr, broadcasting, home ec., hosp. man., theater)
57. Least related to my most important goals for a university: research,
liberal arts
education, professional training.... (Ad/pr, broadcasting, home ec.,
hosp. man.,
physical ed.)
58. Need not be a separate department. (Ad/pr, agriculture, hosp. man.,
statistics)
59. Specialized training institutions predominate in ... three areas.
(Agriculture,
broadcasting, home ec., hosp. man., Judaic studies)
60. These departments are more vocational than academic and could be taken at
junior
colleges or specialized schools. (Broadcasting, criminal justice, home
ec., hosp.
man., pharmacy)
61. They provide curricula peripheral to the arts and sciences and humanities,
i.e.
they are vocational training, and involve little or no material of general
value or
likely to integrate easily with general educational goals. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting, home e
c., hosp. man.)
62. Not relevant to a research-oriented institution. (Ad/pr, broadcasting,
home ec.,
hosp. man., physical ed.)
63. These departments offer degree programs of questionable value. Students
could
major in substantive programs and learn technical skills on-the-job.
(Ad/pr,
broadcasting, education, hosp. man., journalism)
64. These are peripheral to the core at most universities. (Ad/pr, A-A
studies, hosp.
man., Judaic studies, w.s.)
65. Selected because students could study these in other institutions. (Ad/pr,
business, hosp. man.)
66. Would merge with journalism. (A-A studies, broadcasting, home ec., Judaic
studies, w.s.)
67. All could be incorporated in other departments. (Broadcasting, hosp. man.,
Judaic
studies, speech, statistics)
68. Least justification intellectually. (Ad/pr, business, home ec., hosp.
man.,
physical ed.)
69. I question whether they truly belong in an academic setting. (Ad/pr, home
ec.,
hosp. man., physical ed., theater)
70. They are done better elsewhere. (Ad/pr, agriculture, broadcasting,
criminal
justice, home ec., hosp. man., pharmacy)
71. Broadcasting and political science are fields with few job openings and
could be
entered, career-wise, through an alternative avenue. (A-A studies,
broadcasting,
Judaic studies, political science, w.s.)
72. Broadcasting and hospitality management seem to be sub specialties of
communications and business management. (A-A studies, broadcasting, hosp.
man., social
work, w.s.)
73. Too many graduates, not enough jobs. (Ad/pr, anthropology, broadcasting,
economics, hosp. man.)
74. We're a liberal arts college, and these programs are
professional/pre-professional. (Ad/pr, broadcasting, business, hosp.
man., nursing)
75. The departments seem to me to be peripheral to a sound university-level
education. (Ad/pr, home ec., hosp. man.)
76. Not central to our mission. (Ad/pr, architecture, engineering, home ec.,
hosp.
man.)
77. Combine broadcasting with journalism. (Broadcasting, computer science,
music,
speech, statistics)
78. Programs are extremely narrowly focused or specialized and do not
contribute
substantially to a liberal arts education. Some could also be subsumed
under other
departments/programs, e.g. advertising under business. (Ad/pr,
broadcasting, home ec.,
hosp. man., nursing)
79. Could combine instead of eliminate, e.g. broadcasting with journalism.
(Broadcasting, business, geography, philosophy, theater)
80. This is a technical subject best taught in separate technical school. (A-A
studies, broadcasting, hosp. man., Judaic studies, w.s.)
81. Available many places and less career-oriented. (Broadcasting, home ec.,
geography, hosp. man., theater)
82. Can be absorbed into other programs, e.g. advertising into business.
(Ad/pr,
geography, home ec., hosp. man., social work)
83. All could be included in established courses; if something has to be
eliminated
other departments can incorporate the content. (A-A studies,
broadcasting, journalism,
physical ed., statistics)
84. More important to "educate" in basic English/history/language/ sciences,
etc.
Many industries, i.e. broadcasting "train" personnel after they are hired.
Universities should not be training people for too specific industries.
Should not be
a "trade school" Technical-community colleges are best for this. (Ad/pr,
A-A studies,
broadcasting, Judaic studies, theater, w.s)
85. Advertising should be part of business, broadcasting part of
communications.
(Ad/pr, broadcasting, criminal justice, home ec., hosp. man., social work)
86. Advertising because the basics are in psychology/sociology/etc. (Ad/pr,
engineering, geography, home ec., Judaic studies)
87. Peripheral programs or they belong in a trade school. (A-A studies,
broadcasting,
criminal justice, home ec., hosp. man., Judaic studies, pharmacy, w.s.)
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Academia's Priorities
In an Era of Retrenchment
INSTRUCTIONS: To help us learn more about today's faculty members -- their
work,
problems, and priorities -- please answer the following questions. You can
simply
circle the letter before your answer to most questions.
Section I
1. What is your gender? A. Male B. Female
2. What is your academic rank?
A. Instructor D. Professor
B. Assistant professor E. Other
C. Associate professor
3. What is your department?________________________________________
4. About what percentage of your work time do you devote to:
A. Teaching___________________ D. Service_________________
B. Research___________________ E. Other___________________
C. Administration_____________
5. At what type of institution do you teach? A. Private B. Public
6. What is the highest degree offered by your department or unit?
A. Bachelor's B. Master's C. Doctorate D. Other
7. About how many students are enrolled in your school?____________
8. During the past three years, has your institution done any of the
following?
A. Frozen salaries Yes No
B. Increased class sizes Yes No
C. Increased teaching loads Yes No
D. Eliminated faculty positions Yes No
E. Cut department budgets Yes No
F. Eliminated some departments Yes No
G. Encouraged early retirements Yes No
H. Delayed filling faculty lines Yes No
9. If your institution is forced to reduce its faculty payroll next year, would
you
prefer it to:
A. Cut everyone's salary
B. Eliminate the newest (untenured) faculty members
C. Eliminate the least competent and productive faculty members,
regardless of tenure
D. Offer inducements to encourage older faculty members to retire
early
E. Ask only your institution's highest-paid faculty members to accept a
cut in
pay
10. If your institution is forced to cut programs next year, would you prefer
it to:
A. Cut every program equally
B. Eliminate only graduate programs
C. Eliminate its most expensive programs
D. Eliminate its smallest and least productive programs
E. Eliminate programs not central to the mission of the university
11. Which three of these problems do you consider most serious: possible
reasons for
eliminating a program? Place a check mark in front of the three:
A.____Attracts few students
B.____Attracts weak students
C.____Is unusually expensive
D.____Never seeks accreditation
E.____Receives little outside funding
F.____Emphasizes trade or vocational training
G.____Has a weak record of scholarly activity
H.____Has more M.A.'s than Ph.D.'s on its staff
I.____Duplicates programs elsewhere in your state
J.____Is unable to place many of its graduates in jobs in their field
Section II
If you were an administrator and had to eliminate several departments, which
five
would you be the most likely to eliminate? Place a check mark in front of
those five
departments.
1._____Advertising/Public Relations 20._____Home Economics
2._____African-American Studies 21._____Hospitality Management
3._____Agriculture 22._____Journalism
4._____Anthropology 23._____Judaic Studies
5._____Architecture 24._____Mathematics
6._____Art 25._____Music
7._____Biology 26._____Nursing
8._____Broadcasting 27._____Pharmacy
9._____Business 28._____Philosophy
10._____Chemistry 29._____Physical Education
11._____Computer Science 30._____Political Science
12._____Criminal Justice 31._____Psychology
13._____Economics 32._____Social Work
14._____Education 33._____Sociology
15._____Engineering 34._____Speech
16._____English 35._____Statistics
17._____Foreign Languages 36._____Theater
18._____Geography 37._____Women's Studies
19._____History 38._____Other_________________
Briefly, explain why you selected those five departments for elimination:
_______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Please mail the enclosed questionnaire to Prof. Fred Fedler, School of
Communication,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fla. 32816. You can used the stamped,
self-addressed envelope we provide.
Endnotes
Fred Fedler
School of Communication
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Fla. 32816
Phone: 407-823-2839
Fax: 407-823-6360
Journalism's Status In Academia:
A Candidate For Elimination?
By Fred Fedler, Arlen Carey, and Tim Counts
Fedler teaches in the School of Communication and Carey in the Department
of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Counts teaches in the
Department of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida.
A paper presented to the Newspaper Division at the national convention of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in
Chicago
from July 30 to Aug. 2, 1997.
A B S T R A C T
Journalism's Status In Academia:
A Candidate For Elimination?
By Fred Fedler, Arlen Carey, and Tim Counts
Journalism and mass communication (JMC) programs are experiencing a
multitude of problems. At the same time, severe financial pressures are
forcing
colleges and universities to cut back, even to eliminate some programs and
faculty members. To learn more about JMC's ability to survive in this era
of
retrenchment, the authors surveyed more than 600 academicians from all
disciplines and all types of colleges and universities.
If their institution was forced to cut some programs, 58% of this study's
respondents would eliminate programs not central to its mission. Many
would also
eliminate programs with few or weak students and programs whose students
cannot
find jobs. The respondents did not seem to care whether a program was
expensive,
received outside funding, or employed many Ph.D.'s.
The respondents would be most likely to eliminate hospitality management
and home economics, followed by Judaic, women's and African-American
studies.
Only 2.7% would eliminate journalism. However, 31.6% would eliminate
advertising/public relations and 26.2% broadcasting.
Fedler teaches in the School of Communication and Carey in the Department
of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Counts teaches in the
Department of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida.
A paper presented to the Newspaper Division at the national convention of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in
Chicago
from July 30 to Aug. 2, 1997.
Journalism's Status In Academia:
A Candidate For Elimination?
In 1983, Dennis warned that journalism education "appears to be on the ragged
edge of
being so hopelessly outdated that its usefulness may soon be severely
questioned."[23]
Since then, other authors have asked whether journalism education is becoming
"an
endangered species."[24]
The question arises because journalism and mass communication (JMC) programs
are
experiencing a multitude of problems. At the same time, severe financial
pressures are
forcing colleges and universities to cut back, even to eliminate some programs
and fac
ulty members.[25]
To learn more about JMC's ability to survive in this era of retrenchment, the
authors
surveyed more than 600 academicians from all disciplines and all types of
colleges and
universities. The authors asked the respondents about cutbacks at their
institutions,
about problems that might justify a program's elimination, and about which
programs
they would eliminate. The results reveal more about JMC's status, the reasons
for some
of JMC's problems, and the support that JMC can expect from colleagues in
[1] Everette Dennis. "Journalism education: Failing grades from a dean."
ASNE
Bulletin, October 1983. Reprinted as Appendix C in "Planning For
Curricular Change In Journalism Education." Project on the Future of
Journalism and Mass Communication Education. Eugene, Ore.: School of
Journalism, University of Oregon, 2nd ed., 1987, p. 80.
[2] Maurine Beasley. "From The President..." AEJMC News, July 1994, p. 2.
[3] Robin Wilson. "Scholars Off the Tenure Track Wonder If They'll Ever
Get On."
The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14, 1996, pp. A12-A13.
[4] "What to Chop?" Newsweek, April 29, 1996, p. 59.
[5] "What to Chop?" p. 61.
[6] Arthur Joffe, Joseph Lipman, and Morton Lowengrub. "Scrap Math?
Rochester's
plan to downgrade mathematics: a recipe for disaster?" The Chronicle Of
Higher
Education, Section 2, March 1, 1996, p. B1.
[7] Colleen Cordes and Paulette V. Walker. "Ability to Win Grants
Increasingly
Dictates Clout of Departments Within Universities." The Chronicle of
Higher
Education, June 14, 1996, p. A14.
[8] A college official quoted in "Public Colleges Fight for Financial
Health:
Public Institutions Find State Support Unreliable." The Chronicle of
Higher
Education, June 14, 1996, p. A15.
[9] See, for example: "Mass Communication Education Belongs to the
University" by
Jeffrey M. McCall. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Broadcast
Education
Association in Las Vegas, April 12-15, 1991, p. 1-3.
[10] Robert O. Blanchard and William G. Christ. "Beyond the Generic
Curriculum:
The Enriched Major For Journalism And Mass Communication." A paper
presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication in
Portland, Ore., July 3, 1988, pp. 7-8.
[11] McCall. "Mass Communication Education Belongs to the University," p.
3.
[12] Mary Geraghty. "Report Says Journalism Schools Need to Change
Curricula and
Faculty." The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 10, 1996, p. A23. SEE
ALSO: "Dateline -- The Poor House?" by Dorothy Giobee. Editor & Publisher
, May 4, 1996, p. 13.
[13] Reese Cleghorn. "Data Show J-Schools Are Sitting On a Bomb."
American
Journalism Review. June 1996, p. 4. SEE ALSO: The Credential Society:
An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification by Randall
Collins. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
[14] Everette E. Dennis. "Journalism Education -- Storm Swirls on Campus;
Changes
Coming." Presstime, September, 1983.
[15] Robert O. Blanchard and William G. Christ. Media Education And The
Liberal Arts: A Blueprint for the New Professionalism. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1993, p. 70.
[16] McCall. "Mass Communication Education Belongs to the University," pp.
4-5.
[17] See, for example: "What Makes A Great Journalism School." A Special
Report On
Journalism Education. American Journalism Review, May 1995, p. 7.
[18] "Responding To The Challenge of Change." A Report on the Findings of
the AEJMC
Curriculum Task Force. Reprinted in Journalism Educator, Vol. 50, No. 4
(Winter
1996), pp. 101-119. SEE ALSO: "On the Essential Contributions of Mass
Communication Programs" by Richard F. Carter. Journalism Educator, Vol.
49, No. 4 (Winter 1995), pp. 4-10.
[19] Beasley. "From The President...," May 1994, p. 2. SEE ALSO:
"Journalism
education to 'disappear' at U. of Michigan" by Mark Fitzgerald. Editor &
Publisher,
Oct. 21, 1995, p. 32.
[20] Elsie Hebert and Dale Thorn. "Accreditation as a Tool of
Accountability and
Incentive." Journalism Educator, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter 1993), pp. 55-62.
[21] Everette E. Dennis. "Troubling Trends or Anomalous Problems?
Reflections on
the State of the Field of Communication." The Freedom Forum Media Studies
Center at
Columbia University. Opening address to the "State of the Field of
Communications"
conference convened by the College of Communication, University of Texas at
Austin,
Headliners Club, Austin, Texas, June 16-17, 1994, pp. 3-4.
[22] *These and other percentages do not always add up to 100
because some respondents did not answer every question. Other
respondents gave more than one response to some questions. Also,
some responses were unusable.
[23] Everette Dennis. "Journalism education: Failing grades from a dean."
ASNE
Bulletin, October 1983. Reprinted as Appendix C in "Planning For
Curricular Change In Journalism Education." Project on the Future of
Journalism and Mass Communication Education. Eugene, Ore.: School of
Journalism, University of Oregon, 2nd ed., 1987, p. 80.
[24] Maurine Beasley. "From The President..." AEJMC News, July 1994, p.
2.
[25] Robin Wilson. "Scholars Off the Tenure Track Wonder If They'll Ever
Get On."
The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14, 1996, pp. A12-A13.